When newly elected Gov. Gavin Newsom introduced his first budget, he stated that universal preschool would be an important priority. Advocates of that program cheered, convinced that the $18 billion state budget surplus made this the right time to spend the $1.8 billion to make that commitment.

However, universal preschool is just one of the costly programs, all with devoted advocates, that are proposed as part of the record $143 billion general fund budget. Experience cautions us to be careful that we spend money responsibly, and to beware of making ongoing financial commitments to programs with a less than stellar track record.

The governor has said the spending on this program represents one-time money, and no additional funds will be required in future years. Taxpayers should be skeptical. The money needed to retrofit or build classrooms and bathrooms to accommodate younger children may be a one-time cost, but the salaries and benefits for thousands of newly hired teachers will necessarily be an ongoing expense. If a recession or economic slowdown were to hit California, the ongoing spending commitment will likely require higher taxes, fees or tuition costs to fill the hole in the budget.

If Gov. Newsom and the Legislature are not inclined to be fiscally responsible, they might want to consider the political costs of such an outcome. Voters have not always shown support for universal preschool. In 2006, voters rejected Proposition 82, which would have provided universal preschool regardless of income level, by over 20 percentage points.

Advocates of universal preschool say that where the model has been tried, it has worked. As evidence, they cite the results of a Chicago Child-Parent Center program for low-income children. But the comparison is not convincing. The Chicago program had local control, which the California proposal does not, and the Chicago program was limited in size. Numerous studies have shown that targeted universal preschool programs limited to a specific city or county have a better chance of viability.

The second difference between the Chicago program and the California proposal is the specific funding requirements for parental training and involvement. Even in the most expansive preschool program, teachers may only have the children for four or five hours in a day. The role of parents in the success of any preschool program should not be underestimated.

Supporters respond to these arguments by saying universal preschool is uncharted territory, and because it’s never been attempted on a broad scale in California, it is a worthwhile investment. But in fact, it has been tried before, and the record is not encouraging.

For 50 years, the federal Head Start program has provided preschool services to more than 22 million predominantly low-income children. Sadly, there is abundant data to show that its track record is disappointing.

A recent study by two Vanderbilt University professors show that despite gains made by small-scale preschool programs, on a larger scale, any academic gains made in the Head Start program had evaporated by the end of kindergarten or first grade. That study also found that by third grade, Head Start children were disproportionately more aggressive and more likely to suffer from emotional issues. A study done by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which has oversight over Head Start, found that any academic gains from the program disappear by the third grade.

Numerous studies from the RAND think tank have shown that regardless of income level, children who attended any type of preschool were no more likely to achieve a high school diploma or a college degree than students who did not attend preschool.

Respected education experts in California are likewise skeptical. Lance Izumi, noted education author and Senior Fellow with the Pacific Research Institute concluded that, “overall, data do not support the call for increased taxpayer investment in government preschool.”

Gov. Newsom and the advocates of universal preschool should go back to the drawing board and carefully consider both the cost and efficacy of the program. Taxpayers and parents deserve to see success in a scaled-down pilot program before committing to another ongoing government expense.